What is the Right to Repair Act?

Useful Rulings on Right to Repair Act

Recent Rulings on Right to Repair Act

CITY OF SAN JOSE V. FALCOCCHIA

Code section 910, et seq., prior to bringing any claim for money or damages against the City.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

PATEL M.D. VS. JELD-WEN, INC.

The Right to Repair Act, including Civil Code § 896, does not apply by its terms to the construction of this property based on Plaintiffs’ allegations. Plaintiffs' first cause of action for negligence under Civil Code § 896 is sustained, without leave to amend, based on Civil Code § 938. B. Second Cause of Action (Negligence) 1.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

JORGE AMBRIZ VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

The petition must show: (1) that an application was made to the public entity under section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to timely present the claim to the public entity within the time limit specified in section 911.2; and (3) the information required by section 910. Gov. Code §946.6(b).

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

ATIENZA V. SUPER

A tenant or former tenant has an independent action to recover damages for a breach of the warranty of habitability that is separate from his or her right to repair or deduct or to raise an affirmative defense of a breach of the warranty. (See, e.g., Quevedo v. Braga (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 (disapproved of on other grounds by, Knight v. Hallsthammar (1981) 29 Cal.3d 46) (independent action after vacating premises for abatement of excessive rent); Stoiber v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

DELSK GROUP LLC VS DENNIS GUTTIG

(b) This section does not apply to an action against a public entity or public employee upon a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) or Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3, or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 950) of Part 4, of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code. This subdivision shall not apply to any claim presented to a public entity prior to January 1, 1971.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ALLISON HANFORD VS DIVISION OF ADULT PAROLE OPERATIONS

(b) This section does not apply to an action against a public entity or public employee upon a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) or Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3, or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 950) of Part 4, of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code. This subdivision shall not apply to any claim presented to a public entity prior to January 1, 1971.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

CARLOS DANIEL VILLAMOR VS. SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

Section 945.4 provides: "Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board . . . ."

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALLISON HANFORD VS DIVISION OF ADULT PAROLE OPERATIONS

(b) This section does not apply to an action against a public entity or public employee upon a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) or Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3, or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 950) of Part 4, of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code. This subdivision shall not apply to any claim presented to a public entity prior to January 1, 1971.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

DENISE SESCO VS JULIO CESAR VEJARIEL

Family Code section 910(a) states that the general rule is that community property is liable for debts of a spouse during the marriage. However, Family Code section 911 also states that the earnings of a married person during the marriage are not liable for a debt incurred by the person’s spouse before marriage.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

DEREK ROHAN VS JAYBELL, LLC

McMillin notes that after Aas, the Legislature devised a comprehensive statutory scheme to govern construction defect litigation, to wit, the Right to Repair Act. (McMillin, supra, 4 Cal.5th at 247.) “The Act sets forth detailed statewide standards that the components of a dwelling must satisfy.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

IN THE MATTER OF: ANA GUZMAN

Subsection (b) provides that “[t]he petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied . . .” and must show each of the following: “(1) That application was made to the board under Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied. (2) The reason for failure to present the claim within the time limit specified in Section 911.2. (3) The information required by Section 910.”[3] Government Code § 946.6(c) provides that the court must relieve a petitioner from the requirements of

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

CHU V. BROOKFIELD WOODBURY II, LLC

The 1st and 2nd causes of action, Strict Liability and Negligence, are preempted pursuant to the provisions of Civ.Code § 896 (“The Right to Repair Act”). The 3rd cause of action (Nuisance) is not preempted by the Act as same is premised on an alleged violation of statute, Civ.Code §3479. Plaintiff seeks recovery in nuisance for the alleged defective construction and design of a residence and accompanying structures. (Complaint ¶27).

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF: ANA GUZMAN

Subsection (b) provides that “[t]he petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied . . .” and must show each of the following: “(1) That application was made to the board under Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied. (2) The reason for failure to present the claim within the time limit specified in Section 911.2. (3) The information required by Section 910.”[3] Government Code § 946.6(c) provides that the court must relieve a petitioner from the requirements of

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

KENNETH MAYFIELD VS CITY OF INGLEWOOD, ET AL.

“Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board, in accordance with Chapters 1 and 2

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

TAMERIN LEWIS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Because Plaintiff never amended her claim to include Kumlander’s identity, her claim did not comply with Government Code section 910, subdivision (e). And Kumlander contends that noncompliance with Government Code section 910, subdivision (e) acts as a bar to Plaintiff’s claims against him. In support of this assertion, Kumlander cited to Government Code section 950.2 and 950.4.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Family Code section 910 provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by statute, the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of which spouse has the management and control of the property and regardless of whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt or to a judgment for the debt.” Sarcor submits a copy of Judgment Debtor’s credit report which identifies his spouse simply as “MARTA.” (Mot., Jones Decl., ¶ 8 Exh. C.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PETITION OF TABATHA RUUD

Thus, Respondent was provided with essentially the same information that is required to be provided in a government claim under Government Code section 910. Therefore, Respondent will suffer no prejudice by the granting of this Petition to file late claim, in that Respondent received all of the information about the claim they need for notice while evidence is available, witness memories are fresh, and they can investigate and if appropriate, settle early and avoid unnecessary expense. Barbara A. Kronlund

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

LENA AZARYAN VS CITY OF PASADENA

Section 910 ... until a written claim therefore has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board....” Section 910, in turn, requires that the claim state the “date, place, and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted” and provide “[a] general description of the ... injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim.”

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

TAMERIN LEWIS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Because Plaintiff never amended her claim to include Kumlander’s identity, her claim did not comply with Government Code section 910, subdivision (e). And Kumlander contends that noncompliance with Government Code section 910, subdivision (e) acts as a bar to Plaintiff’s claims against him. In support of this assertion, Kumlander cited to Government Code section 950.2 and 950.4.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

COTTONE V. COTTONE

Family Code section 910, subdivision (a), provides, “Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of which spouse has the management and control of the property and regardless of whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt or to a judgment for the debt.” Community property assets are relevant to punitive damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010.

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2020

ROMO V. LATON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

There are two main issues raised by the demurrer and the opposing papers: first, whether the Defendants are equitably estopped from arguing that Plaintiff’s claims were untimely presented; and, second, whether the claim as presented substantially complied with Government Code section 910 regarding claims under the Government Torts Claim Act.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SAMUEL CAMARISTA VS. MERITAGE HOMES

Code of Civil Procedure §§ 337.1 and 337.15 do not apply to a cause of action under the Right to Repair Act, Civil Code § 895, et seq., which has a separate statute of limitations under Civil Code § 941. Civil Code § 941(d), by its terms makes Code of Civil Procedure §§ 337.1 and 337.15 inapplicable to claims brought under the Right to Repair Act, Civil Code § 895 et seq.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Family Code section 910, subdivision (a) provides. “Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of which spouse had the management and control of the property and regardless of whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt or to a judgment for the debt.” III. Discussion Judgment Creditor’s counsel conducted a debtor examination of Judgment Debtor Jeldi on March 14, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHRISTOPHER KREIDER VS LUIS ALEXIS HERNANDEZ ET AL

Under Government Code 945.4: “Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board, in accordance

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

THE GLOBE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. THE GLOBE AT 2ND AND SANTA CLARA L.P., ET AL.

Sixth Cause of Action for Negligence Swinerton argues that Plaintiff’s case falls within the Right to Repair Act and that the allegations of the sixth cause of action are a sham pleading because Plaintiff has changed the facts of the negligence cause of action to circumvent the exclusivity of the Act. The Right to Repair Act is encompassed by Civil Code sections 895-945.5. (McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 241, 246-247.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.